Genocide revisionism by University of Edinburgh Rector and the deeply irresponsible nature of the University’s initial response In the past, many people without experience relating to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi have fallen foul of making misguided and inaccurate statements, perhaps due to misinformation that’s frequently found online frequently disseminated by documented Genocide deniers or Rwandans and foreigners with links to the former MRND genocidal regime. However, for many individuals making such mistakes, when the inaccuracies of their statements are highlighted by Genocide survivors, diplomats, lawyers and credible academics with years of experience or expertise related to the Genocide and the history of Rwanda, they would acknowledge their error, clearly retract what had been written, remove offending material, apologise and not repeat the mistake thereafter. This has observably not been the case with the most recent high profile case that has taken place in the past week. Debora Kayembe is the Rector of the University of Edinburgh, widely acknowledged as one of the most prestigious universities in Scotland and the wider UK. She has an extensive professional background as a barrister in the legal profession, in political circles and in charity work, which arguably could be viewed as aggravating factors with regard to her recent actions. On April 14, 2022, and as part of a social media statement on Twitter directed at UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson relating to the recent UK-Rwanda migration partnership, Kayembe asserted “should I remind you that the genocide in Rwanda was orchestrated by Kagame”. Naturally members of the Rwandan community and friends of Rwanda expressed their anger on the platform, some responding with disbelief, others trying to explain the problematic nature of her statement. Many encouraged her to remove the offensive and factually incorrect material. Ultimately, the post was removed, though without confirmation as to whether she herself removed it or if it was taken down by Twitter upon reporting by users. At this point, as serious as the issue is, an affirmation from Debora Kayembe of her understanding that she had made a serious mistake and a genuine apology may have lessened the feelings of deep hurt that her message had caused, particularly to Genocide survivors. However, instead on the April 19, Kayembe posted a follow-up statement that “The Rwanda genocide in 1994 took place; there’s several documentations that state Mr Kagame was behind it; that is simply the true (sic)!!”. The second post eliminated any possibility that the first one was an innocent but misguided error, and instead would lead a sensible observer to conclude that Kayembe holds the personal view that Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, in his early life a child refugee whose family had to flee Rwanda during the massacre of Tutsi people in 1959, and who spent his young childhood in a refugee camp outside Rwanda, was singly responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. The construction of Kayembe’s statements, including doubling down days after her first statement despite numerous disapproving reactions, raise serious concerns. In terms of the specific wording, the phrasing of ‘genocide in Rwanda’ in the first post, then ‘the Rwanda genocide’ in the second, opens the door to interpretation over who the genocide was directed against. The second part of each post where it ‘was orchestrated by Kagame’ in the first post and ‘Mr Kagame was behind it’ in the second, ensures that each post blurs who were the victims and who were the perpetrators. It is for reasons such as this that the importance and significance of the official title of The 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi be emphasised, as it allows no such blurred conclusions to be drawn. The repetition of each of these elements raises legitimate concern and suspicion that, taken in their totality, Kayembe’s combined statements represent a form of genocide revisionism or even negationism. Even if not intended, this is demonstrably how they have been read and understood by a great many who have viewed them. Genocide against Tutsi was planned long before execution It appears to be a never-ending battle to stop the spread of misleading or false information such as that contained in Kayembe’s statements, which is somewhat incredible when considering the wealth of legitimate evidence on record. It is important to stress that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in case ICTR-98-44-AR73(C) (Karemera et al), after the accumulation of a vast amount of evidence covering multiple cases that “there is no reasonable basis for anyone to dispute that, during 1994 there was a campaign of mass killing intended to destroy in whole or at least in a very large part, Rwanda’s Tutsi population… The campaign was to a terrible degree, successful; although the exact numbers may never be known, the great majority of Tutsis were murdered, and many others were raped or otherwise harmed.” Judgments in the international tribunal prior to this had already confirmed that they “unanimously and decisively confirmed the occurrence of genocide in Rwanda”. To be clear, international justice does not hold the monopoly over justice and truth in the aftermath of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. With the testimonies of tens of thousands of victims, statements made by perpetrators, as documented in several million pages of documents recording the activities of the Gacaca courts there is simply no legitimacy that can be found in attempting to mystify the realities of what happened in 1994. A further problem with Kayembe’s statements may be that, rather than the Genocide against the Tutsi as a whole, her posts could also be interpreted as being specifically related to the shooting down of former President Juvenal Habyarimana’s aeroplane on the evening of April 4, 1994, the notorious myth that a single event such as the death of a politician could cause a genocide to occur. Of course no person or persons have yet been convicted of this crime. However, to make the inference in this regard would require searching for information such as that contained in the 2006 Bruguière report, then ignoring the subsequent official discreditation of that report in 2012 and most recently the final failed appeal from Habyarimana’s family to the French Court of Cassation. The court declared that they found no “sufficient charges against anyone for committing the alleged crimes, nor any other infraction”. That Kayembe has history as a senior professional lawyer, yet through her social media posts misrepresents the decades of judicial record covering the nature of the Genocide and wider areas she appears to be commenting on from a position of factually flawed certainty is deeply troubling, as her ignorance to the existing matters of judicial record, or ability to understand and interpret them with such a background would be incredibly unlikely. Beyond the legal inquiry, however, there is a further serious concern with regard to the inferences Kayembe makes. To suggest, in relation to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, that President Kagame could possibly have “orchestrated” or been “behind it” carries with it the unspoken yet clearly inferred assertion that somehow the actions of Kagame caused hundreds of thousands of ordinary people – farmers, shopkeepers, teachers and mechanics amongst many normal working people – to somehow become killers, massacring their own former neighbours and friends, men and women, adults and children. For the eventual perpetrators to do what they did requires generations, decades of psychological conditioning that is intended to have the effect of instilling hatred in the perpetrator group, directed toward the eventual victim group, and with a significant dehumanising element. Something that renders the victims less than human in the eyes of the masses. Again, there is significant judicial record in this regard, such as case ICTR-99-52 (Nahimana et al) where the founders of the RTLM radio station and editor of the notorious Kangura publication were found guilty of various charges, including incitement to commit genocide, genocide, and aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity. Whilst not forgetting the previous colonial divide and rule strategies that date back to the end of the 19th century, Rwanda’s post-independence historical and political records going back to the 1960s show that a combination of policy and accepted practices implemented over some three decades were designed to create systemic negative discrimination against the country’s Tutsi citizens. Practices inherited from President Gregoire Kayibanda were further amplified and escalated by Habyarimana to the extent that open hate speech was not only tolerated but actively encouraged in the early 1990s. They were captured in the notorious words spoken by Léon Mugesera in 1992 when he publicly and explicitly called for the of killing of the Tutsi people in Rwanda and throwing their bodies in the River Nyabarongo as a way of sending them back to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) where they purportedly belonged. These are the types of long-term conditions that create psychological conditioning within a population that can result in a genocide such as that in 1994 against the Tutsi. Such conditions cannot stem from any remote action by anybody who was not in the country during the decades in question, rather they can only be established by those with significant control over the population in question. Ambiguous response from university Of course, this detail is well known to all who credibly research the history of Rwanda and what happened in 1994. The records and information are freely available to anybody who chooses to learn from an objective standpoint. Several of these points were put in short form to Kayembe by those responding to her social media statements. However, rather than meaningfully engage with the matter, her response was instead to block all who challenged the inaccurate statements she had made. Given the repeated nature of the revisionary statements made by Kayembe, some decided to try to engage the University of Edinburgh officially, as although her Twitter account mentions that posts are her personal opinions, there is also use of the official university logo and her official university title on Kayembe’s account. Those who sent the communication through social media to the University of Edinburgh include Rwanda’s High Commissioner to the UK, Johnston Busingye, renowned genocide scholar Tom Ndahiro, and the British investigative journalist and author Linda Melvern. One might expect that given the seriousness of the issue that the University might have decided to launch an investigation, or even assure those that were raising the issue that it would be taken seriously – after all we are talking about a genocide that resulted in the deaths of over a million victims, not to mention the massive number of those displaced becoming refugees around the world. Instead, the precise response from the University of Edinburgh’s official Twitter account stated solely: “Thanks for your message. Debora Kayembe is commenting in a personal capacity and not in her position as Rector. The Role of Rector is largely a ceremonial one, open to election by, and often working closely with, staff and students.” From this, it appeared, initially at least, that the university considered the matter to be inconsequential and a closed matter. However, as a significant number of further challenges were made, including that by the Ishami Foundation, the University expanded on its initial response on April 21 to clarify what they set out as their full position that: “We do not share Debora Kayembe’s views, which were made in a personal capacity. The University of Edinburgh – in step with the UN, multinational organisations, and nations all over the world – acknowledges the Genocide against the Tutsi as one of the most appalling crimes against humanity, and rejects outright the notion that the Rwandan government and its sitting President are responsible. At this moment of Kwibuka commemorations in Rwanda, the University stands with Rwandan people in its remembrance of those who have been lost. The Rector is not the leader of the University. The role of Rector in our University is largely a ceremonial one.” Breach of varsity policy Nonetheless, on further investigation, the University of Edinburgh has clear policies relating to the role of the Rector and membership of University court. On the role of Rector, the policy reflects the wording of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889 and states that the function “is to preside at meetings of the University’s governing body, the University Court” and also preside “at meetings of the General Council in the absence of the Chancellor”. With voting rights on official university matters, the role is not purely a ceremonial one. Being a member of University Court, the Rector, as a condition of their appointment, is bound by the relevant code of conduct, which states that “The Court will expect any member who is in gross or persistent breach of this Code of Conduct to resign. Such a breach may occur through persistent absenteeism, medical incapacity or legal impediment such as criminal conviction for dishonesty, or such other behaviour as may be deemed inimical to the good standing of the Court”, with the principles that must be adhered to including those of integrity, objectivity and accountability. The conditions under which a senior lay member of Court such as a Rector can be removed are contained in Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016, which sets out that removal from the senior lay post can be proposed on grounds of “misconduct (whether or not in the capacity as member)”. In other words, even when not acting in an official membership capacity at the time of a particular action, the actions of a member of University Court can still be regarded to be misconduct for the purposes of potential removal from office should they breach the relevant code of conduct. Importantly, the 2016 legislation also set out that removal from office can only take place through a resolution being proposed on the relevant grounds then passed by a majority of members of the governing body, and as such no one person has the power to arbitrarily remove the Rector, and in practice what this means is that if an allegation is made such as to be so serious as to potentially warrant removal from office, then a formal discussion must take place regarding the matter prior to an official vote by members of the Court. The person subject to the potential action does not have a vote counted in such a process. Eventually, on April 21, the same day as the expanded official statement from the University of Edinburgh, Kayembe herself issued what was clearly intended to be read as an apology writing “To all Rwandans, President Kagame, and the Tutsi community around the world. I realised my comments were hurtful and disrespectful to you. Those were not the university’s but my own views. My sincere apologies. Amahoro (peace)”. At first glance this may appear to be a genuine apology; however, it is important to note the precise wording used, where nowhere in the statement does she either retract or acknowledge the falsity of her prior statements, choosing instead to refer to her prior statements as personal views. Under the circumstances discussed, where Debora Kayembe has engaged in repeated statements of genocide revisionism, refusal to acknowledge the falsity of the information contained within those statements, further refusal to engage with subject experts on the matter, and use of an account bearing both her official University designation and the University of Edinburgh logo, it is difficult to see how members of the senior leadership team from the University of Edinburgh, including its Vice Chancellor Peter Mathieson, could legitimately defend an accusation that she has brought the University’s reputation into disrepute through her public posts. It is equally difficult to imagine how they might defend the flippancy of the initial attempt to dismiss the serious concerns raised, and subsequently even in the clarified and expanded full statement still refusing to engage in any possible further action that might be taken with relation to their current Rector, relying on an untenable position that the Rector’s public messages do not have any impact on her role as Rector or status at the University. It remains to be seen what, if anything, University of Edinburgh will do next to avoid further self-inflicted damage to its own reputation, as certainly this will not be the last that the Rwandan community around the world have to say on the matter. Allan T. Moore (PhD) is a Scottish senior lecturer in criminology, with specialisms in terms of researching and teaching of genocide studies, crimes against humanity and international criminal justice. He has researched and published widely in the context of Rwanda.
